Dear Frank, Chrisine and friends,

I would like to see the Indian people NOT as a homogenious people but
one of varying languages and customs. It is like the many African
tribes in Africa or the many dialect groups in China. I do not know
much of Africa except the fact that communication between the African
countries is now made possible only because they use English as the
medium. In China, besides the many minority ethnic group, the main
Han people has many dozen of dialect groups, each with its own unique
dialect and customs. I think it is the same among the Australian
aboriginal people and in Europe.

Most people agree that the Buddha speaks more than one language, due
to the fine education he received when young. And since he was
trained to inherit the small Shakyan kingdom from his father, it was
both politically and culturally important that he knows to speak the
languages of the more powerful neighbours such as Magadha and Kosala.

The Buddha, according to the Tipitaka, studied the Vedas as a boy and
that would mean he knows Vedic Sanskrit. However, he may not have
used Sanskrit in his teaching as he belongs to a new religious
movement, the Samana movement, that would rather not embrace anything
Vedic.

Pali, or even the hybrid Sanskrit used in Mahayana buddhist texts,
should not be perceived as a liturgical language as Arabic is in
Islam or Hebrew/Greek/Latin is in Judaism/Christianity. In fact, in
at least one place in the Tipitaka, the Buddha has disagreed with one
disciple who wanted to make the Buddha's teaching available in one
language only. Instead, the Buddha wants his disciples to share the
dhamma with others in the language of their audiences. This is why we
see that long before the Bible is translated to English (the first
language outside Hebrew/Greek/Latin), the Buddhadharma is already
available in dozens of Asian languages.


metta,
Yong Peng

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, christine_forsyth wrote:
I wonder if language in the Buddha's time had a few local variants
e.g. a usage acceptable to the majority of people of all age groups
and levels in society, as well as one for the 'upper' and educated
classes, and a more impermanent type of language (such as one sees
every couple of years with high school age people) identifying one as
rebelling against authority, or having particular interests such as
surfing, styles of music and dancing, or the political 'cause' of the
moment?

> I can understand the Buddha wishing his teachings to be conveyed in
a language that would be understood by most people, but another
consideration would be that it is actually 'listened' to.

> You mention "how the Buddha talks about using conventional language
to teach dhamma" But , by this, did he mean not using something
like Latin, which until recent years was the language of the Catholic
clergy though all but unintelligible to Everyman? Did this really
mean using language that the majority would consider vulgar? Would
most people be willing and able to 'hear' a message phrased in
language they wouldn't allow in their own home?

> [Is it possible that your idea of 'conventional' could mean someone
else's 'slang' or 'unacceptable'].